Frank whomever on another thread wrote this:
“So after you go around calling the CRU “a bunch of liars and scam artists” — based on nothing but innuendo — you have the temerity to lecture me on “calling names”?”
Actually I said they look like a bunch of liars and scam artists to me, but perhaps we should help Frankie figure out what CRU may have done wrong? He also ‘warned’ that he may mock me.
Of course, you’re perfectly free not to follow this advice, but in that case I’m also free to mock you in every way I can. Consider yourself warned.
It’s like he’s never read here before. Yes I do have the ‘temerity’ Dr. Frank. I also have little patience for those who would deny the shenanigans of CRU.
the Air Vent 
But don’t you know, just boys being boys — nothing unusual!
Unless you have standards higher than those of a guttersnipe, of course.
One thing I’ve learned from blogging is that people can rationalize anything. They actually believe it too. Before tAV I would never have guessed how far their mental machinations would go.
Jeff,
The funny thing (OK, funny to me) is that folks like Frank seem blinded by their own political inclinations to what was wrong with the documented behaviors of the self-described ‘hockey team’. It is not that Frank and his ilk say these things did not happen, it is that they say these things were in fact “OK”, and appropriate, and focus instead on how unfair/illegal/immoral/etc. it was that these activities became public knowledge.
People like Frank simply want to institutionalize and legitimize the process of “experts” (AKA ‘progressive liberals”) controlling how everyone else lives. The ends always justify the means when your goals are “right”. He is disconnected from reality.
Excellent, Jeff Id! ,b>I see that the picture you put up is an extremely accurate depiction of your ‘fact-checking’ process — you insert your head into your butt, and hey presto, you get plenty of ‘evidence’ of ‘CRU shenanigans’. I couldn’t have come up with a better portrayal myself!
Or maybe it’s just metaphorical, and you were actually getting your ‘evidence’ from Andrew Montford’s butt?
Remember that you said this about the so-called ‘paragraph 44’ brouhaha:
In other words, your evidence of a deliberate cover-up by CRU on this issue is zilch. Nought. Nada. Rien.
But please, keep posting more photos of your head in your butt.
— frank
Whatever Frank. Nice discussion we’re having though eh?
Jeff, clearly your evidence does not reach the high standard evidenced on Frank’s website:
What does frank say above?
zilch. Nought. Nada. Rien.
My bet is that the picture in the head post is Frank looking for other sources for the undisclosed evidence. 😉
Why, oh, why, do you guys insist on engaging the Franks of the world. They are certainly allowed to have their opinions, but it is rather obvious that you will not learn anything from those conversations or convince a Frank otherwise or even moderate his views.
So, Frank, the behaviour of the ClimateGate scientists was OK? How can that be? Look at the mess they are in.
And look at the mess climate science is in. It’s going to take years of correctly predicting future temperatures(how can they do that?) for them to regain credibility. That is not good for any of us.
===================================
Jeff Id:
I realize you’re trying to look powerful and strong before your target audience. But you’re doing it wrong.
* * *
RomanM, nice try at quote mining. You forgot the part that follows:
And, I’m not using Adam’s words as evidence of anything; I’m just reporting what he said to a question I asked, and leaving it at that.
So guys, where’s your evidence of a deliberate cover-up by CRU regarding Holland’s paragraph 44? There’s no evidence at all, is there?
— frank
Ah yes, the old “several lines of evidence”.
Translation, “we don’t know, but we think…”
Fits perfectly into the world of climate science.
Frank,
When you challenge me with a warning of pending mocking doom, it was too much to resist. If I’m doing it wrong perhaps you have some better suggestions on how to mock you?
WRT your comment on Holland, I haven’t verified it but are there any other referenced scientific papers in the IPCC chapter of the same or later date or is that the newest one? It seems that may resolve the issue.
Frank,
While it is quite clear that Whal’s work was designed to discredit McIntyre / McKitrick’s results without time for a counter argument(it actually verified them) I will throw you a bone.
There are two other papers of hundreds which were also allowed to pass the deadline and still be used.
Wahl
Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007
Muscheler
Received 12 March 2006; accepted 21 July 2006
Tett
Received: 25 October 2005 / Accepted: 1 June 2006 / Published online: 22 September 2006
It won’t settle it, Jeff. Wahl has a backstory that Muscheler and Tett do not have. And that makes all the difference.
=====================
#9 frank:
I didn’t ignore it.
Your extra information was no information at all. It was a reference to another blog where there was NO support whatsoever to support the statement “evidence has emerged effectively ruling out [FOI2009.zip being] a leak from inside the CRU”.
However, you didn’t “leave it at that”. This (nonexistent) “evidence” was then added to the other supposed incontravertible “proofs” of the nonsense you were pushing. It’s SOP when something turns out to be completely unsupportable on a dogma-based pro-CAGW site.
Jeff,
You’ve seen people rationalize anything for years. Anyone who disagrees with the president’s policies is a racist. Anyone who disagrees wants America to suffer. Perjury is a serious crime — unless the perp is a Democrat in the White House. Sexual harassment, even if only an unproven allegation, disqualifies anyone from public office — unless by a Democrat in the White House (in which case it makes feminist journalists want to get on their knees and service his desires). Perjury isn’t really a crime, if somebody had sex. Except oral sex isn’t really sex. Except for purposes of excusing criminal perjury.
Global warming isn’t about science. It’s about politics, totally and completely. The stupid, mindless rationalizations, the slandering of opponents, the extraordinary tribalism — all standard in politics today. All standard in environmentalism. All standard in climate alarmism.
Kim, I agree completely but we also must consider that there were other back stories we didn’t uncover. As concerned as those involved with Wahl were about the deadline, there must also be reasons for these other two papers.
Hmmm, Jeff. Another very interesting line of inquiry. Any easy way to find those papers?
===============
Thanks the article..
Kim,
One of the articles is on line. I’ll get it tomorrow for you. The other is behind a paywall.
Awww, give Frank a break. He’s just searching for polyps. Or maybe love.
RomanM:
Well, you’ve certainly failed to refute any of it.
* * *
Jeff Id:
Gish Gallop at work. In other words, you still have no evidence of a cover-up behind the so-called paragraph 44 ‘scandal’.
The four and fortieth paragraph /
Of climate science’s epitaph /
Which came from David Holland’s butt — /
argh, it got eaten by a mutt!
So Holland blames the CRU /
and Jeff Id hates the CRU /
And so another meme is born /
That ‘CRU did science suborn’
Refrain (sung by Id, Holland, and Montford):
We have no proof /
We need no proof /
Accusation is proof /
CRU goes poof
We have no proof /
We need no proof /
Accusation is proof /
CRU goes poof
— frank
Frank,
Do you really believe the CRU is clean of any wrongdoing?
Do you think it’s ok to chop off data that doesn’t support your conclusions and paste on other data that does?
Would that have been OK for Phillip Morris in a cancer study?
Head for the light at the end of the tunnel young man…..
Antidisestablishuniformitarianism.
================
Kim,
Great word for it.
Frankly, Jeff, I think you are wasting your time.
I’m nearly certain of it John. Why not though? There isn’t any time for real blog work now so when Frank attempts his driveby attack, he made it fun for a minute. I thought the phillip morris reference was good because the enviro-left hates them so much.
My guess is that he won’t have the guts to answer it honestly.
Does Frank really not understand the paragraph 44 issue?
Here’s the summary:
* Review receives Holland’s report.
* Review refuses to publish it, claiming ‘legal issues’ (never explained).
* Ex-UEA man Boulton mangles Holland submission, removing numbering and deleting para 44, and gives it to Briffan and Osborn.
* Briffa and Osborn write their response, re-inserting the numbering 43 45.
* This shows they in fact have Holland’s original full submission (since confirmed by UEA).
* In their response to para 45 they write “No text from Wahl is quoted above and therefore this statement is in error”.
* In fact of course they knew about the text quoted above because they had the full submission and they themselves inserted the numbers 43 45.
“scam artists” seems like a fair comment.
Here’s the issue: you have zero evidence of any cover-up.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Thank you.
— frank
Frank, you can’t write ‘citation needed’ when it refers to the report you are defending.
Jeff, I’m beginning to agree with John in #25. Frank lacks the critical thinking skills to evaluate any arguments presented to him. I get the sense that “he” may not be a person at all, but a failed AI algorithm written as a high school project. 😉
The citations are at the review’s web page here (Briffa response with Holland’s numbers restored)
and the response to FOI here admitting Briffa had the original Holland submission
and the letter from Boulton to Briffa in Appendix A
here with Holland’s paragraphs deleted and numbering removed.
I assumed we were talking to someone who had been following the story, but apparently not. Jeff’s picture of Frank seems very appropriate.
Anyway, it’s good to have a reason to re-iterate the points and give the story more publicity – thanks Frank!
#27 PaulM
This part of their response really makes no reasonable sense in a professional world.
If I were writing an honest reply to Holland’s submission and noticed a reference to non-existent material, my reaction would be to contact the individuals who had given me the document to ensure that the missing material had not inadvertently been omitted from the copy I had been given.
Regardless of this, their response must have been read by the people who had copies of the original submission. Again, if the intent had been an honest reply, do you not think that they would have corrected Briffa and Osborn by indicating to them that the portion had been omitted and needed to be replied to? Not to do so would risk making B and O look incompetent at best, and, at worst, dishonest.
The admission by UEA that Briffa had the original submission is extremely damning. There is no word but ‘dishonest’ for the reply.
One wonders why they thought they would get away with it, and why they thought they ought to. The damage is deep.
==============================
PaulM:
OK, let’s get the timeline straight. So on which date exactly did Briffa and Osborn receive Holland’s complete submission?
Since you’ve been following the story so closely, I’m sure you should be able to give a quick answer to that one, right?
Or are you, once more, just throwing out insinuations?
— frank
Frank,
It can’t be ‘just’ doing anything, this has been the story since the beginning. Perhaps you should read it before calling people idiots? From the loudness of your protestations you may want to actually understand what you are arguing bout.
Naw, reading is for geeks…
And RomanM, where’s your super-duper refutation of the evidence of a cyber-attack on CRU? Again, it doesn’t actually exist, does it?
— frank
Hey Frank,
I finally read your link through. Can you explain what the evidence is that this was a ‘cyber attack’ because I can’t see anything. The proxy servers are public devices which can be accessed from anywhere so that doesn’t count. What is left?
I saw this, and thought of Frank:
Jeff Id:
Shorter Jeff Id:
I don’t know, but I’ll continue throwing out insinuations.
* * *
Once more: which date, Jeff?
— frank
Jeff Id:
Then I’m curious to know how a climate scientist, who’s very likely without 31337 h4x0ring skills, ‘discover’ these proxy servers in the first place. Because they’re not exactly proxy servers on some reputable network such as Tor.
Everything else.
— frank
39 frank – AFAIK there is no date in the public domain as the story goes they rec’d it from a “3rd party”. I haven’t followed that closely recently so I could have missed it. If you know the date and the 3rd party please share it.
My suspicion is that a university student got access to the server directly. It doesn’t take a great deal of skill to find proxy servers as I understand.
As far as your date issues, you can do your own legwork. It’s obvious that holland submitted prior to the committees deadlines because they had the stuff. It’s also obvious that the critical parts were left out – a pattern throughout the “review” process. Again though, you can believe what you want but there is substantial evidence of deliberate wrongdoing here as we have seen elsewhere in the review. Not that you will ever listen though.
curious:
Thank you, exactly my point. Briffa and Osborn replied to parts of Holland’s submission on 19 May 2010. They received Holland’s later query on the complete submission only on 19 Nov 2010. There’s no indication whether they received the complete submission itself before or after 19 May.
Yes, Jeff Id, there’s a difference here. Fact-checking: you should try it out some time. Instead of repeatedly casting innuendo.
— frank
Ah, is there a fault line between Briffa and whoever gave him the incomplete submission? Ought to be a yawning one, but it does seem they are all in it together; neither death nor life can separate their love.
======================================
43 Frank, I give up, your superior fact checking skill has carried the day.
😛
43 frank – “There’s no indication whether they received the complete submission itself before or after 19 May.” I think the date of receipt would be worth requesting via FOI. As far as I recall David Holland offered people copies of his submission with a gentleman’s agreement “for correction only” around the time of the Inquiry.
frank – do you have any information on who performed the edit on David Holland’s submission prior to circulation by Boulton?
This discussion is bordering on the absurd.
Anyone remember Captain queeg and the missing strawberries?
Jeff,
Your assertion (as you know yourself) is bang on the money, I myself know instinctively, that the CRU are a bunch of lying prestidigitator’s, who are extremely economical with the truth.
This is not at all surprising, they are after-all, merely government shills (as are the Met office – just like civil servants= taking the Government shilling – that are not independent nor objective and how is that scientific?).
They were asked to prove AGW, they couldn’t, they cooked the books, simple unadulterated lying, though it keeps ’em in a job (so the AGW promulgation and lies go on).
Take a look-see at Jones’s visage, is that the face of a confident man?
I think not: his discomfit, is in keeping with a boy caught in the cookie jar and red handed at that!
Appalling but symptomatic of the way things are done in Britain these days, integrity, public spiritedness, the PUBLIC GOOD still less – empiricism have died, shame on the UEA and the CRU.
We all lose, all they (CRU) do is resort to (veiled) threat, wouldn’t the (more correct) way of things be, to show renewed determination to PROVE their case (not so though) – And this lack of intellectual fencing (there’s nothing there to argue is there?)…….this also provides the ammunition for realists to rain fire upon their redoubt and that redoubt: is now being pounded and the walls crumble as we write.
IT happens, when you build your castle upon, foundations set in loose sand.
Ad homs, threats of legal action are all bluff and the result of, pompous feigned indignation.
” Fact-checking: you should try it out some time.”
Sometimes you have to deduce the facts from the evidence available, and especially when the facts you want to check are deliberately obscured by corrupt scientists and their political pals.
My god,
The disease from climatesight strikes the airvent.
How does it feel, frank, to post at blogs without comment censorship? I hope all that extra oxygen doesn’t have any lasting effects.
So just to confirm Frank’s idea on paragraph 44, “Briffa and Osborn replied to parts of Holland’s submission on 19 May 2010. They received Holland’s later query on the complete submission only on 19 Nov 2010. There’s no indication whether they received the complete submission itself before or after 19 May.
Boulton gave Briffa a highly edited copy of Holland’s submission with all numbering removed.
Briffa responds to that edited copy and adds in paragraph numbers but for some unknown reason does not add them seqentially (meaning it is not 42, 43, 44, 45, 46… it is 42, 43, 45, 46).
We just don’t know if Briffa got a copy before his response or not and it could just be a coincedence that the numbers Briffa skipped when he added in paragraph numbers exactly matched the paragraphs Boulton deleted before ever giving Briffa a copy.
Frank, that is down right funny… sad but funny.
In response to RomanM in 32…
I have an alternative theory for Briffa’s response, perhaps he was keeping himself clean of the problem Boulton was creating by editing Holland’s submission.
If someone gave me a highly edited paper to respond to with numbering removed, making it much harder see that editing was done (original not officially published), I could see myself adding in the correct numbering while responding truthfully to the highly edited paper.
Basically a more subtle way of saying “there is nothing to offically respond to because someone deleted the statement out of the copy I received”.
It turns the situation from Briffa doing something accidental (deleting the correct paragraphs from the full submission yet accidentally leaving the numbering in tact) into a situation where Briffa intentionally added in the correct numbering to the paragraphs of the version Boulton created.